SciPost logo

SciPost Submission Page

Influence of Geant4 Physics List on Simulation Accuracy and Performance

by Róbert Breier, Alexander Fuss, Holger Kluck, Valentyna Mokina, Veronika Palušová, Pavel Povinec

This is not the latest submitted version.

This Submission thread is now published as

Submission summary

Authors (as registered SciPost users): Valentyna Mokina · Veronika Palusova
Submission information
Preprint Link: scipost_202209_00048v2  (pdf)
Date submitted: 2022-12-05 13:57
Submitted by: Palusova, Veronika
Submitted to: SciPost Physics Proceedings
Proceedings issue: 14th International Conference on Identification of Dark Matter (IDM2022)
Ontological classification
Academic field: Physics
Specialties:
  • Nuclear Physics - Experiment
Approaches: Experimental, Computational

Abstract

A main goal of current low background physics is the search for rare and novel phenomena beyond the Standard Model of particle physics, e.g. the scattering off of a potential Dark Matter particle inside a CaWO4 crystal or the neutrinoless double beta decay of Ge nucleus. The success of such searches depends on a reliable background prediction via Monte Carlo simulations. A widely used toolkit to construct these simulations is GEANT4, which offers a wide choice of physics models, so-called physics lists. To facilitate the selection of physics lists for simulations of CaWO4 and Ge targets, we quantify their impact on the total energy deposition for several test cases.

Current status:
Has been resubmitted


Submission & Refereeing History

You are currently on this page

Resubmission scipost_202209_00048v2 on 5 December 2022

Reports on this Submission

Anonymous Report 1 on 2022-12-7 (Invited Report)

Strengths

Same as in the previous submission

Weaknesses

Mostly same as in the previous submission but some unclear statements have been clarified in the 2nd version.

Report

Criteria met; recommend to publish

Requested changes

Abbreviation for goodness of fit is used in Conclusions but I do not see this to be introduced earlier.

I suggest to say explicitly in Figure 2 and 3 captions which detector size was used. This is not clear.

  • validity: top
  • significance: high
  • originality: top
  • clarity: good
  • formatting: excellent
  • grammar: excellent

Login to report or comment